What does that mean, exactly? "Steal from other races?" Americans got the laser and the rocket from the Germans after WWII. Does that count?

As demig0d pointed out, the Greeks had some pretty amazing things that we just haven't found anywhere else. But lets assume, for the sake of argument, that they didn't invent anything new? Does it matter?

Here's what Bob Whitaker has to say, and I can't really improve on it:

When the last energy revolution occurred, fossil fuels began with coal taking over the roads. For century it was like the huge UNIVAC computers, limited to large scale in the form of railroads and factories. Then Henry Ford became the Bill Gates of fossil fuels.

Neither Ford nor Gates claimed to be original. Gates said he was waiting on personal computers to reach a certain level, and he named the new PC that developed and caused him to tell his partner, “Now it’s time to get going.“

Certainly Ford made even less claim to being original.

In fact, who exactly invented something is usually a historical detail. Some Chinese invented one thing after another, OR it got to China from White India, but each time the invention stopped when it got to China. The printing press was there but died, the gun was in Japan in the sixteenth century but died.

There is a lot of debate about whether China invented GUN powder. They did have rockets that made no difference to their history, so the question is did they have GUNS that made no difference to their history?

But the real, the HISTORICAL question about Oriental inventiveness is already answered: If you have to look so closely to see whether gunpowder was ever there, then clearly the Oriental use of it is entirely different from the Aryans’.

In a white society there is a lot of debate about who invented something. The reason for this is that the SOCIETY had reached a point where the ingredients are there and someone will put them together. There has never been a debate in Oriental society about who invented what.

Unlike Al Gore, Gates did not claim to invent the Internet just as Henry Ford never claimed to have invented the automobile. Ford‘s mass production methods were what made Eli Whitney rich after he found the cotton gin was simply too simple to keep patent rights on.

But both Gates and Ford did the thing that is utterly lacking in Oriental societies. They took a concept and made it a societal advance.

The space program is going through a similar process. When the USSR’s Sputnik went up in 1958 a number of giant programs were adopted to counter that achievement in the US. What most people didn’t know was that a rocket that could do the same thing was sitting in the US stockpile.

I wonder if the Soviets ever invented ANYTHING?

But there is nothing the media like like a national crisis, so a national crisis Sputnik became.

If you read science fiction from the 50s and 60s you consistently find the computers involved are giants, Univac’s big brothers, as dependent on size as on advancing technology. In China, the things which impress Americans in history, like iron foundries, were huge projects.

But it is on the Ford stage that Western technology is built. In 1958 Sputnik, which was putting an overweight basketball into orbit, was a massive project that showed that only The Collectives of the Peoples’ Democratic Republics, working the entire economy under Mommy Professor’s planning, could produce such a marvel.

Now putting things into orbit is regular business, and each year the businesses able to do it get smaller.

Right now a person can construct an A-Bomb off the Internet if he has the uranium. It is the power that is missing. So Brian and I are watching for the new power source.

With that new power source will come a time when private use of outer space is as common as it is in old sci-fi stories.

We are now seeing problems with regulating the Internet between countries like the ones they will encounter in regulating space.
But you will not see any of these future realities discussed anywhere but BUGS.

I have heard this lots of times and thought of posing this as a question to SF members.

Most of the stuff attributed to the Greeks, in fact the Greeks stole from other races such as the Persians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Indians and Chinese.

The Greeks were only good at assimilating and tabulating stuff. The Greeks on their own did not give anything significant to this world.

How would you respond?

Not a WN but would have to say no.
I assume they learned some things from others but they definitely excelled in science and philosophy.
I think you are thinking of the Romans who sucked at philosophy and science and pretty much took all that from the conquered nations of the east. The Romans did have some killer engineers and technicians though.

I dont know about the others but I know Egypt was built by Whites and India was too. Most of their knowledge came from Aryans who moved in and took over before interracialism could doom another White society.

Indians are sortof half White and half local. You can tell with the upper class ones.

The Pyramids and Egypt tech are all White. You can check the details by going over the Pharohs. I think Ramses II was the last White Pharoh before interacialism kicked in and the whole nation fell into stagnation.

I have heard this lots of times and thought of posing this as a question to SF members.

Most of the stuff attributed to the Greeks, in fact the Greeks stole from other races such as the Persians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Indians and Chinese.

The Greeks were only good at assimilating and tabulating stuff. The Greeks on their own did not give anything significant to this world.

How would you respond?

I wouldn't call it stealing per se. Greece was a highly developed civilisation and imbibed a lot from their peers at that time. The complete number theory was developed in India and of course, knowledge can never be constricted to one source. The Greeks did splendid job with knowledge that they gained and I have to say that their prowess in sciences was exemplary.

Sir Charles Eliot said "If Europeans have any superiority over Asiatics it lies in practical science, finance and administration, not in philosophy, thought or art. Their gifts are authority and power to organize; in other respects their superiority is imaginary."
Remember that Eliot is essentially speaking about Greece here (when he says Europeans) which was the torchbearer to European society as we know today.
Historically, MANY dominant civilisations have been guilty of over-emphasising their importance. Greeks weren't the first and wouldn't be the last.

On a side note, I really don't like the fact that some nationalists (also on this site) downplay Asia's contribution quite a lot. Ancient India and China was every bit as competitive as Europe, if not more. Sometimes a few comments made here reek of a simplistic understanding of history and a bit of Euro-supremacy, to be honest.

Here is an interesting link, if anyone wishes to investigate this topic further.

I hope my message is not seen in a bad light. It is not good that people speak down of other worthy civilisations - that's my whole point. If any WN is offended (unintentional), then I apologise. This is your house and I understand that I'm expected to play by your rules